Mobile payment is an innovative technology and has transformed the way the banking sector functions. It enables individuals to perform transactions and to interact with banking institutions without being physically present in a branch or using automated teller machines (ATM). Mobile payments are defined as performing, initiating, or authorizing a payment using a mobile device. Mobile payments offer convenience, effectiveness, and cost-savings ^[1]. The global payment trend has switched to non-cash methods, and online payments have become one of the most popular and widespread methods used.

In the United States, 89% of consumers pay using a credit card or debit card; in contrast, only 7.7% prefer mobile payments ^[2].

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has directly influenced the adoption of payment methods alternative to cash to limit physical contact. A recent study reported rapid and drastic habit changes ^[3], suggesting that research on payment mechanisms should focus on promoting contactless alternatives. This information forms a valid and feasible basis for trying to understand the factors that provoke the adoption and actual use of mobile payments as the world moves toward a cashless society.

In principle, to use mobile payment services, the user must first open an account that links the payment instrument (a card or wallet) to their bank or financial institution. Then, the user enables the instrument to send or receive money to/from merchants/others. On the other side, the merchant/individual who requests payment or accepts mobile payment must also exchange their payment information with a financial institution or bank. Only then will the merchant/individual be able to receive funds and provide consistent payment services among various financial services. Therefore, the payment request received by the consumer is securely sent to the acquirer. The acquirer, who has a direct relationship with the merchant, forwards the payment information to the relevant financial institution so that payment can be completed. The whole cycle of this data flow, starting from the mobile device and the subsequent series of processes, is called a mobile payment service ^[3][4][5].

A mobile payment service can include using existing payment services provided by the financial institution and bank or a middle person/through IT company. However, the payment has to be linked to other third-party systems to be completed in both cases. Indeed, traditional payment services utilize an IT infrastructure/technology similar to Fintech payment services, so they have some limitations and challenges. For example, suppose that a mobile payment uses an existing traditional payment system and needs to connect merchants from different financial institutions. In that case, a different payment handshake method must be used for each financial institution, even when they use the same service. Additionally, traditional payment systems and platforms that provide a mobile payment service were not explicitly created for payment and were not specialized for user convenience ^[3][4][5].

A mobile payment service involves different parties, starting from the mobile device, the financial institutions’ issuer and acquirer systems, the network provider, and merchant systems. This raises a security issue and requires proper mutual authentication. The absence of such requirements can cause critical financial damage to the institutions, consumer, merchant, and whole payment system. For example, a middle person attack or malicious attack that changes the payment information can cause false payment details to be delivered, thus redirecting the payment. Such a case can cause money debited from the user account but not received by the merchant or the desired beneficiary account. The customer is charged for the service/product but does not receive the services/ product as the merchant did not receive the money ^[3][4][5].

The mobile payment service links and integrates with a variety of systems and apps. As a result, different policies and procedures are used to govern transaction flow in these systems, which can compromise end-user convenience and makes it more difficult to access the application if high-security requirements are used. Nevertheless, security factors are background concerns as customers will not see or experience them directly. However, once a security incident occurs, end-user trust in the system is severely impacted ^[3][4][5].

In summary, a reasonable and viable reason to better understand the factors that drive acceptance and use of mobile payments has emerged as the world moves toward a cashless society. To that end, the Mobile Technology Acceptance Model (MTAM) was used to create the base framework for this research. This model has been used in previous studies where the subject matter was mobile devices or mobile services/apps. Moreover, related additional constructs were added to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to analyse the practical use of mobile payments from the perspective of human behaviour. This research expands these models and analyses the intention and actual usage behaviour of mobile payments with an additional variable from other dimensions by integrating these two profoundly different models. The new revised model, named “Mobile Payment Technology Acceptance Model and Behaviour (MPTAMB)”, also suggests the moderation of experiences with mobile payments issues.

2. Current Insights

The new model consists of 12 variables. The construct perceived value is vital in the proposed model. The quick access, time-savings, loyalty point redemptions, and reduction in fees were found to be relevant in enhancing the perceived value of using mobile payments per the interview responses. The reliability test indicated that this variable was reliable. Cronbach’s alpha scored 0.949 from this first pilot test of 101 participants.

Digital social media influence affects the user’s decision to use mobile payments. Respondents indicated that reviewing online content and the ratings of the service providers makes the user more comfortable with using the mobile payment application. The indicator shows a positive weighting. The preliminary descriptive analysis reported that around 74% of the respondent check online content and act accordingly. Cronbach’s alpha was reported at 0.856, which indicates how reliable this construct is in affecting the actual use of mobile payments.

Perceived security risk of mobile payments, especially on mobile payment systems and in exchanging sensitive data such as bank card details, also influences the decision to use mobile payments. Respondents stated that security is an issue. However, if they were assured by the mobile payment provider about compensations for account hacking or misuse of their account caused by the application. Cronbach’s alpha reported the reliability of the construct at 0.772.

The perceived trust was measured using two instruments (on a seven-item Likert scale). Response for trusting that unauthorized people cannot gain access to their account showed about 67% trust and reported a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.894. Responses to complete trust in the mobile payment provider scored 73% (strongly agree, 22%; agree 44; and somehow agree 7%). This indicates that most respondents put their trust in mobile payments. The reliability test reports a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.865 for this construct. A summary of all Cronbach’s alpha values is reported in Table1.

Table 1. Loading ractor, Cronbach’s alpha, roh_A, composite reliability, and AVE.

Construct	Item	Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha	Rho_A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Attitude	AT1	0.958	0.979	0.980	0.985	0.941
	AT2	0.972
	AT3	0.970
	AT4	0.980
Actual Mobile Payment Use	AUB1	0.928	0.896	0.948	0.933	0.824
	AUB2	0.878
	AUB3	0.917
Digital Social Media Influence	DSMPI1	0.916	0.856	0.903	0.932	0.873
	DSMPI2	0.952
Facilitating Condition	FC1	0.835	0.938	0.956	0.956	0.845
	FC2	0.929
	FC3	0.955
	FC4	0.952
Intention to Use Mobile Payments	IU1	0.952	0.974	0.975	0.981	0.928
	IU2	0.958
	IU3	0.972
	IU4	0.972
Perceived Behavioural Control	PBC1	0.961	0.960	0.960	0.974	0.926
	PBC2	0.963
	PBC3	0.963
Perceived Ease of Use	PEoU1	0.922	0.958	0.963	0.969	0.888
	PEoU2	0.950
	PEoU3	0.957
	PEoU4	0.940
Perceived Security Risk	PSR1	0.869	0.772	0.822	0.896	0.811
	PSR2	0.931
Perceived Trust	PT1	0.836	0.894	0.894	0.927	0.760
	PT2	0.837
	PT3	0.902
	PT4	0.908
Perceived Usefulness	PU1	0.840	0.950	0.966	0.964	0.871
	PU2	0.967
	PU3	0.969
	PU4	0.950
Perceived Value	PV1	0.944	0.949	0.950	0.967	0.908
	PV2	0.967
	PV3	0.948
Subjective Norms	SN1	0.884	0.847	0.849	0.908	0.767
	SN2	0.831
	SN3	0.911
Technical Feasibilities	TF1	0.921	0.840	0.845	0.926	0.861
	TF2	0.935

Similarly, the subjective norms scored 0.847; perceived usefulness scored 0.950; technical feasibilities scored 0.840; perceived behaviour control scored 0.960; intention to use scored 0.974; attitude scored 0.979; and perceived ease of use scored 0.958.

3. Conclusions

To conclude, using a newly developed model named “Mobile Payment Technology Acceptance Model and Behaviour”, this research examined the willingness to adopt mobile payments. The new and revised model is the main contribution of this research. Based on the test conducted, the results showed the potential of the researchers' framework and, therefore, the data collection stage in answering the researchers' research question. Using the revised Mobile Payment Technology Acceptance Model and Behaviour, this research examined individual intentions and actual use of mobile payment technology. The significance of this research lies in the theoretical, methodical, managerial, and social contributions.

In predicting the actual use of mobile payment methods, the data analysis reported that perceived security risk, technical feasibilities and perceived value were significant variables. Therefore, to provoke the actual use of mobile payment, mobile payment providers should improve the given value of mobile payment, improve the security of mobile payment, and finally allocate strategies to enhance the technical feasibilities of the consumer.